DETAILED ACTION
Election of 28 October 2025
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-13) without traverse, is acknowledged:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9: The filtration assembly of claim 1, wherein the tubular housing is configured to keep, during backwash, the first fluid within its inner volume at a level below the filter surface.
Applicant fails to describe in the Specification how the “tubular housing is configured” to accomplish the function of claim 9, in a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor
[0009] In some implementations, the tubular housing keeps, during the backwash, the first fluid within its inner volume at a level below the filter surface.
[0016] In some implementations, the flowing of the second fluid includes flowing the second fluid while maintaining the first fluid within the inner volume at a level below the filter surface. In some implementations, flowing the second fluid includes flowing the second fluid while or after draining the first fluid from the tubular housing.
[0036] As shown in FIG. 3, to clean the filter system 100, the vessel 101 can be backwashed by reversing the flow and using the backwash assembly 115. For example, to clean the filter surface 111, the backwash assembly 115 flows fluid to the filter surface 111 to remove any particles stuck in the filter surface 111. During backwash, the first fluid can be maintained within the inner volume at a level below the filter surface.
While the above Specification paragraphs mention maintaining the claimed “level” they do not teach one skilled in the relevant art the structure or “configuration” that would dictate or accomplish the maintenance of said level.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4,7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
It is unclear to what the recitation, “a respective mesh of the filter surface” in claim 4 is referring. Claims 1 and 2 from which claim 4 depends, do not specify a mesh of any kind. Applicant may wish to positively recite “a plurality of meshes” in claim 4 where appropriate.
In claim 7, it is unclear if a “degassing drum” is intended to be positively recited as a component of the claimed “filtration assembly”, or recited with respect to intended use. It is unclear how “wherein the second fluid comprises water with chlorine, and the first fluid comprises water or hydrocarbons or both flowed from a degassing drum” further limits the “filter assembly” set forth in the preamble of the pending, elected claims.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what structure(s) dictate(s) that, “the tubular housing is configured to keep, during backwash, the first fluid within its inner volume at a level below the filter surface.” It is unclear what constitutes, “during backwash”. Claim 9 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim. It is unclear what is intended by “the first fluid within its inner volume”.
In claim 10, it is unclear how specifying “the tubular housing comprises a vessel” further limits the claim or the “tubular housing”. This language appears to impermissibly broaden the scope of “tubular housing”. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by WACKEROW (US 748,821 – 1904).
PNG
media_image2.png
910
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed limitations are mapped into the claims below using the reference letters of WACKEROW in parenthesis.
1. A filtration assembly, comprising: a tubular housing (B – Fig. 1) that comprises an inner volume, a first fluid inlet (C), a second fluid inlet (K), and a first fluid outlet (D); and a partition (P) configured to reside within the tubular housing to divide the inner volume into a first volume (A – Fig. 2) and a second volume (B – Fig. 2), the partition comprising a filter surface (screen - P), the tubular housing configured to direct, during filtration of a first fluid, the first fluid from the first fluid inlet to the first volume, from the first volume through the filter surface to the second volume, and from the second volume to the first fluid outlet, and the tubular housing is configured to direct a second fluid from the second fluid inlet to the second volume, through the second volume and the filter surface to the first volume, and from the first volume out of the tubular housing (via N), the second fluid configured to remove particles from the filter surface.
2. The filtration assembly of claim 1, wherein the second fluid inlet comprises one or more nozzles (K – Fig. 2) and the second fluid reaches the filter surface (P) at a speed substantially equal to a speed of the second fluid leaving the one or more nozzles.
3. The filtration assembly of claim 2, wherein the one or more nozzles (K) are configured to direct the second fluid toward the filter surface at a velocity sufficient to remove particles from the filter surface.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the nozzle K of WACKEROW is capable of introducing the “second fluid” at the specified “speed”/”velocity”. Such “speed”/”velocity” is dependent on process conditions (e.g., fluid pressure, flow rate, etc.) which would appropriately appear in process claims, not apparatus claims.
Regarding Claim 6,
6. The filtration assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter surface (P) defines an inlet side facing the first volume (“A” – Fig. 2) and an outlet side facing the second volume (“B”) and the second fluid inlet (“K”) such that the second fluid flows straight from the second fluid inlet to the outlet side (upper surface of “P”) of the filter surface.
Regarding Claim 7, the material being treated does not serve to impart patentability to apparatus claims. See MPEP Section 2115.
Regarding Claim 8, which only specifies process limitations, is not seen to be structurally distinguished from WACKEROW, the structure of which is certainly capable of functioning in the manner claimed, using the various disclosed inlets/outlets.
Regarding Claim 9, which also only specifies process limitations (“wherein the tubular housing is configured to keep, during backwash, the first fluid within its inner volume at a level below the filter surface”), is not seen to be structurally distinguished from WACKEROW, the structure of which is certainly capable of functioning in the manner claimed, by manipulating flows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WACKEROW (US 748,821 – 1904) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-9 above, and further in view of HOLZ (US 4,529,519 – 1985) and WOLF (US 2,980,538 – 1961).
Claim 4 specifies:
4. The filtration assembly of claim 2, wherein the one or more nozzles (K) comprises a plurality of nozzles each facing a respective mesh of the filter surface.
Claim 4 differs from WACKEROW as applied above because it does not appear to expressly disclose a “plurality of nozzles each facing a respective mesh of the filter surface”.
HOLZ discloses circular screen cage screening supported by non-perforated regions 24 to add stability/rigidity to the screen cage wall 12 in a similar separating device (see col. 3, lines 20-25 and Figures 1-7). In view of the disclosure of HOLZ, it would have been obvious to employ non-perforated regions in the device of WAKEROW in order to add stability and rigidity to the screen cage wall. WOLF discloses the use of a plurality of nozzles “27” directed at a screen structure “14”, in a straining structure. In view of WOLF, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a plurality of nozzles in the system of WACKEROW, in order to spray a larger portion of the filter surface.
PNG
media_image3.png
866
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
894
551
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WACKEROW (US 748,821 – 1904).
Claim 7 specifies, “wherein the second fluid comprises water with chlorine, and the first fluid comprises water or hydrocarbons or both flowed from a degassing drum.”
Claim 7 is alternatively rejected here in the event that Applicant intends “a degassing drum” to be a positively recited limitation the claimed “filtration assembly”. One skilled in the art would readily appreciated that a fluid to be used in treatment would need to be stored in some type of vessel, for example, a drum. The use of a storage vessel, for example, a drum, to store treatment fluids, would have been obvious.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WACKEROW as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-9 above, and further in view of HOLZ (US 4,529,519 – 1985).
Claims 10 and 11 specify:
10. The filtration assembly of claim 1, wherein the tubular housing comprises a vessel and the partition comprises a rigid sheet disposed within and fixed to the vessel, the filter surface comprising one or more filter meshes fixed to and coplanar with a section of the rigid sheet.
11. The filtration assembly of claim 10, wherein the one or more filter meshes comprises a plurality of circular meshes () spaced from each other.
The underscored portions of claims 10 and 11 are not taught by WACKEROW as applied above.
HOLZ discloses circular screen cage screening supported by non-perforated or rigid sheet regions 24 to add stability/rigidity to the screen cage wall 12 in a similar separating device (see col. 3, lines 20-25 and Figures 1-7). In view of the disclosure of HOLZ, it would have been obvious to employ non-perforated regions in the device of WAKEROW in order to add stability and rigidity to the screen cage wall.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WACKEROW as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-9 above, and further in view of GIBSON (U.S. 493,132).
12. The filtration assembly of claim 1, wherein the tubular housing defines a central longitudinal axis of the tubular housing, the partition comprising a first portion on a plane substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis, and a second portion extending from the first portion at an angle of between 200 and 850 with respect to the plane.
GIBSON discloses such a partition “D” and “M” or “B” as shown in Fig. 2 of GIBSON below. In view of the disclosure of GIBSON, it would have been obvious to modify WACKEROW by incorporating a partition as disclosed by GIBSON, in order to control fluid flows.
PNG
media_image5.png
901
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WACKEROW as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-9 above, and further in view of KELSEY (U.S. 11,148,071).
Claim 13 specifies:
13. The filtration assembly of claim 1, wherein the tubular housing comprises a first fluid drain (N) fluidly coupled to the first volume and a second fluid drain fluidly coupled to the second volume, at least one of the first fluid drain and the second fluid drain configured to drain at least one of the fluid or the second fluid from the inner volume during backwash.
The underscored portion of claim 13 above, is not taught by WACKEROW.
KELSEY discloses, a plurality of drains 850 including a first drain 860, a second drain 870, and a third drain 880. In some embodiments, any one of the vents 800 and/or drains 850 can vent or drain a fluid. In some embodiments, fluid can exit the primary process vessel 115 through any one of the vents 800 and/or drains 850. In other embodiments, fluid can enter the primary process vessel 115 through any one of the vents 800 and/or drains 850.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WACKEROW by employing multiple drains, in view of the teachings of KELSEY, to drain different portions of a vessel, in order to more easily drain it.
PNG
media_image6.png
343
569
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by WINTON (US 1,646,513 – 1927).
PNG
media_image7.png
554
584
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The claimed limitations are mapped into the claims below using the reference numerals of WINTON in parenthesis.
1. A filtration assembly, comprising: a tubular housing (1) that comprises an inner volume, a first fluid inlet (7), a second fluid inlet (11), and a first fluid outlet (8); and a partition (14) configured to reside within the tubular housing to divide the inner volume into a first volume (4) and a second volume (unlabeled above partition 14), the partition comprising a filter surface (14), the tubular housing configured to direct, during filtration of a first fluid, the first fluid from the first fluid inlet to the first volume, from the first volume through the filter surface to the second volume, and from the second volume to the first fluid outlet, and the tubular housing is configured to direct a second fluid from the second fluid inlet to the second volume, through the second volume and the filter surface to the first volume, and from the first volume out of the tubular housing (via 12), the second fluid configured to remove particles from the filter surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1,5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1/A2) as being anticipated by DEPALLENS (U.S. 2,641,364).
DEPALLENS discloses a tubular housing (1,6) including a filter partition 14, with the other structural elements of claim 1, called out in the Examiner annotated figure of DEPALLENS depicted below. Regarding claim 5, structure “7” of DEPALLENS can introduce a second fluid at a plane normal to filter surface 14. Claim 8, which only specifies process limitations, is not seen to be structurally distinguished from DEPALLENS, the structure of which is certainly capable of functioning in the manner claimed, using the various disclosed inlets/outlets.
PNG
media_image8.png
1000
783
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “degassing drum” as recited in claim 7, the housing being “configured to keep, during backwash, the first fluid within its inner volume at a level below the filter surface”, as recited in claim 9, “a respective mesh” as recited in claim 4, “one or more filter meshes fixed to and coplanar with a section of the rigid sheet” as recited in claim 10, and “a plurality of circular meshes spaced from each other” as recited in claim 11 all, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that “circles 113” are depicted in Fig. 1. Those circles 113 do not depict a “mesh”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse is acknowledged:
PNG
media_image9.png
125
633
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER DIETERLE can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776